Loading...
Apple Inc. has taken legal action to dismiss a federal lawsuit accusing the company of misappropriating trade secrets used to develop its popular digital wallet platform, Apple Pay. The lawsuit, filed by payment technology firm Fintiv Inc., alleges that Apple unlawfully used proprietary mobile payment innovations that Fintiv acquired in 2014. Apple’s latest motion seeks to end the case entirely, arguing that Fintiv’s claims are both legally and procedurally defective.
Apple Asserts Lawsuit Is “Time-Barred” and Lacking in Evidence
According to court documents filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Apple contends that Fintiv’s claims should be dismissed because they were filed far too late. The company argues that Fintiv has been aware of the facts surrounding the alleged trade secret violations since at least 2014—the same year Apple Pay launched.
Fintiv’s Allegations: A Decade-Long Dispute Over Mobile Payment Technology
Fintiv Inc., a Texas-based fintech company headquartered in Austin, purchased the mobile commerce platform CorFire from a Georgia firm in 2014. CorFire’s technology was known for enabling secure mobile payments through tokenization and device-based authentication—features similar to those later used in Apple Pay.
Fintiv alleges that Apple gained access to CorFire’s proprietary systems during confidential discussions before Apple Pay’s public launch. The company claims that Apple “misappropriated trade secrets” and built Apple Pay using stolen know-how, which has since generated billions in profits.
In addition to the trade secret accusations, Fintiv’s lawsuit includes claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, asserting that Apple engaged in a “pattern of racketeering activity” by working with banks and credit card networks to collect transaction fees using technology derived from stolen trade secrets.
The complaint further names major financial institutions as participants in Apple’s alleged scheme, including Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Capital One, and Wells Fargo, along with card networks such as Visa, Mastercard, and American Express. According to Fintiv, these companies benefited from Apple’s technology and continue to profit through the use of Apple Pay.
Get JD Journal in Your Mail
Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!
Apple Denies Wrongdoing, Cites Lack of Legal Basis
In its motion to dismiss, Apple denies any wrongdoing and maintains that the company developed Apple Pay independently. The tech giant argues that Fintiv’s allegations are “unsupported by facts and inconsistent with established legal standards.”
Apple further asserts that the RICO claims are baseless, pointing out that Fintiv failed to demonstrate a pattern of criminal conduct—a requirement for sustaining such allegations. “There is no evidence of any racketeering enterprise,” Apple’s filing states. “At most, Fintiv has alleged ordinary business relationships, which do not meet the threshold for a RICO violation.”
The company also emphasized that Fintiv’s trade secret claims are redundant and speculative, lacking the specificity required to prove that Apple had access to or used the alleged confidential information.
Apple Requests Case Transfer to Texas Federal Court
If the court declines to dismiss the case outright, Apple has proposed transferring the matter to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, where similar disputes between the two companies have previously been litigated.
In 2022, Judge Alan Albright of the Waco federal court dismissed a separate patent lawsuit Fintiv brought against Apple over similar payment technology claims. Apple argues that Judge Albright’s familiarity with the parties and issues would allow for a more efficient resolution of this case.
“Transferring the case to Texas would promote judicial economy and consistency,” Apple noted in its filing. “Georgia has little connection to the dispute, and duplicating proceedings in a new jurisdiction serves no purpose.”
Fintiv’s Legal Battle Against Apple Continues
Fintiv’s claims are the latest in a series of legal challenges it has brought against Apple over the past decade. The company has pursued multiple patent and intellectual property disputes, asserting that Apple unfairly leveraged CorFire’s technologies to dominate the mobile payment market.
Fintiv’s CEO previously stated that Apple Pay’s success came “at the expense of the rightful owners of the underlying technology,” arguing that the company’s conduct has harmed competition and innovation in the fintech sector.
Apple Pay, launched in October 2014, quickly became one of the most widely used digital payment systems worldwide. By linking users’ credit and debit cards to Apple devices, the service allows secure, contactless transactions both online and in stores. According to market research, Apple Pay now processes billions of transactions annually, generating substantial service revenue for Apple through fees paid by card issuers.
Legal Experts Weigh In
Legal analysts suggest that Apple’s strategy to seek dismissal or transfer may hinge on procedural rather than substantive defenses. “Apple’s motion is a strong opening move,” said one intellectual property attorney familiar with the case. “By arguing that the claims are time-barred and lack a factual foundation, Apple positions itself to either end the case early or push it back to Texas, where prior rulings favor its position.”
However, others note that Fintiv could still amend its complaint or provide additional evidence to sustain some of its claims. “RICO claims are difficult to prove,” one expert added, “but trade secret disputes often depend on the details—what information was actually shared, under what terms, and how it was allegedly used.”
Case Information
The case is Fintiv Inc. v. Apple Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, case number 25-04413. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for the protection of proprietary technology in the rapidly evolving fintech sector.
For more updates on high-profile technology and intellectual property lawsuits, visit LawCrossing.com — your source for the latest legal news, insights, and career opportunities across the U.S. legal market.
